MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 3471, 27 July 1899, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka —Tuesday, July 25th, 1890.

[Before C. A. Wray, Esq., S.M.] BREACHES OF STOCK ACT. A. Priddle was charged with neglecting to supply returns under the Stock Act. Mr Empson, stock inspector, gave evidence that the return had not been sent in. It should have been forwarded in May. Fined 20s and costs. Edward Crowe was charged with a similar offence. He stated that he had not receii ed any forms. The stock inspector said that he had received one form back through the Dead Letter Office. Pined 20s and costs. ALLEGED ASSAULT. Edward Pilbrow was charged with unlawfully assaulting A. W. Surridge. Mr Aspinall appeared for the defendant, and Mr Farnie for the informant. Here there was a cross action, in which E. Pilbrow laid an information against A. W. Surridge for throwing snowballs, to the danger of passers-by. Alfred William Surridge, a painter, said that Monday morning there was a lot of snowballing going on. About a couple of dozen people were engaged. They did not attack passers-by. He was engaged with others, and was stooping down when he received a savers blow on the head from a stick, followed by another. He looked up and saw Mr Pilbrow. Mr Aspinall: Did not see Mr Pilbrow coming down Commerce street.' Did not throw snowballs at him when he got the clout. Mr Pilbrow made a savage attack on him. There were no marks, but a nasty bump on the back of his head. By His Worship; Was sure none of his snowballs struck Mr Pilbrow. Chas. Battes, stock agent at Temuka, gave evidence that he saw the snowballing going on. He saw Mr Pilbrow walking down Commerce street, and when at the corner of the Wallingford Hotel, two little boys threw snowballs at him. Surridge was coming across the street, and Mr Pilbrow made a rush at him, flourished a stick about and belaboured him with it. By Mr Aspinall: Had been about the corner for about three-quarters of an hour, and had been well snowballed himself. Was sure a lot of men did not rush over and snowball Mr Pilbrow. For the defence it was submitted that Mr Pilbrow, seeing a lot of people snowballing, went by way of Railway Terrace and Commerce Street. Near the Wallingford Hotel- he was snowballed by some small boys and he dropped some letters. On stooping to pick them up he was simply smothered with snowballs by a crowd who rushed across the road. In a dazed condition ho swung his stick round, and found he had hit someone. He looked up and saw Surridge, and told him he would take proceedings against him. Surridge then laid an information for assault. Edward Pilbrow, town clerk, Temuka, then gave evidence to this effect. He heard Surridge call out: “ Clout him,” or words to that effect. Did not strike Surridge intentionally. By Mr Farnie: Did not catch bold of and belabour Surridge. His-Worship said it was not proved to his satisfaction that Surridge snowballed their worthy town clerk. There seemed to have been some indiscriminate snowballing, and Mr Pilbrow no doubt felt aggrieved. He would dismiss both charges. C. Storey v. Holdborough—Claim 17s 6d. Mr Farnie for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. C. Leary v. Edmund Burke —Claim £lB 2s lOd. Mr Aspinall for plaintiff and Mr Farnie for defendant. Mr Farnie appeared on behalf of Messrs Smithson, Raymond & Barklie, and applied for a-change of venue to Geraldine. Cornelius Leary, farmer, Hilton, gave evidence that he had a conversation with defendant’s son about some carting. On the Gth April he went to Geraldine and saw Mr Burke, jr. Subsequently he received a message at Hilton to the effect that he had got the contract. Hilton was seven miles from Geraldine and ten from Temuka. Mr Farnie submitted that this was sufficient to admit of change of venue. Moreover the defendant, who lived within two miles of Geraldine and twelve from here, was in delicate health. Mr Aspinall submitted that the cause of action really arose in the Temuka district, as the contract was to bo completed at Winchester. His Worship said that, strictly speaking, Geraldine was the proper court, but there seemed no sufficient reason for making a change. He should adjourn it until next court day here. Costs would be considered when the case is heard. R. C. Latimore v. S. Breadloy.—Claim £5 13s, for work and horse labour. Mr Aspinall for plaintiff, and Mr Farnie for defendant. There was a counter claim, and both cases were heard together. R. Latimore, labourer, residing at Orari, said he hnd worked often for the defendant, and had a settlement in 1893. He gave particulars of several transactions extending from 1894. The principal ones were two days drilling potatoes, carting timber from Kakahn, assisting to build shed on the racecourse reserve. Breadley promised to let him have some carcases of mutton at 3s each as part payment. When horses were used 10s a day was charged, on other occasions Gs per day. He had not pressed for the money due, as the defendant was not well off. In connection with the counter claim plaintiff stated that some chaff he got from Breadley was returned, all but one bag. Sheep charged for had been credited. He had used Breadley’s mare, but had lent one on exchange. Had never hired one for three weeks. By Mr Farnie: Some of the work was not done for Mr Breadley’s son. Catherine Latimore gave corroborative evidence. For the defence Mr Farnie called Samuel Breadley, settler at Orari, who gave evidence that he had nothing to do with the claim for planting potatoes. He had helped to cart scrub from the Kakahu. Latimore did not work twelve days, but not more than seven at the shed building. He had never had a settlement with Latimore, who owed him plenty yet. In cross-examination witness said that the work done in connection with potatoes was for his son. Witness had no land at the time. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff, £3 4s, with costs.